Getting a bill through the House will be harder than climbing the border fence

AS HIS constituents aired their concerns at a town-hall meeting this week, Bob Goodlatte, a Republican congressman from Virginia, nodded politely. “This immigration bill stinks to high heaven,” thundered one, referring to a package of reforms approved by the Senate that would, among other things, allow most of America’s 11m-odd illegal immigrants to become citizens. “If you legalise 11m illegal aliens, you’re going to be overwhelmed by who knows how many tens of millions more,” declared another. “We will become a third-world country.” A third implores: “Use all your powers to make sure this bill does not get out of the House.”

Mr Goodlatte is the chairman of the judiciary committee in the House of Representatives, which is responsible for immigration policy. The committee has been working on its own approach to immigration, he assures his constituents, and will not slavishly follow the Senate. In fact, he says, the House will not even put the Senate bill to a vote. He wants to see more manpower hunting for illegal immigrants within the country, to add to the 40,000 extra boots the Senate bill puts along the border. No interlopers should win a reprieve until Congress judges the border secure, he says. Even then, they should receive only residency, not citizenship.

That is anathema to most Democrats. Barack Obama insists that a “path to citizenship”, no matter how arduous (the Senate bill’s entails a 13-year wait, the payment of fines and a background check) must be part of any reform. Fourteen Republican senators voted for the Senate bill, giving it a hefty bipartisan majority. Polls show that most voters like the Senate’s plan.

Most important, nearly all Hispanic voters support a path to citizenship. Scuppering one, it is assumed, would further diminish the Republican Party’s already feeble support among a fast-growing chunk of the electorate. The Republican National Committee, which co-ordinates the party’s election campaigns, has called on it to embrace immigration reform. So have several figures from the party’s evangelical bedrock, such as Ralph Reed, the leader of a pressure group called the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina and a co-author of the Senate bill, says it will be hard for a Republican to become president until the party puts the issue behind it.

For that reason, predicts another of the Senate bill’s authors, Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, the House leadership will make sure that it is passed, one way or another. Since almost all Democrats will vote for it, fewer than 20 Republican defectors would be needed for it to squeak through. Democrats have duly identified 23 Republicans they consider “persuadable”. Many others might secretly be relieved to see the bill pass, the theory runs, even if they noisily oppose it.

Hide the welcome mat

Thanks to gerrymandering, however, most House Republicans represent districts that are safe and bone-white—75% white, on average, compared with 51% for Democrats. Republican primary voters in such places tend to see a path to citizenship as amnesty for criminals. They fret that it will lead to a flood of undesirable foreigners. Rank-and-file Republicans blocked a previous stab at immigration reform, championed by George W. Bush in 2007.

This time, it is the cheerleaders for reform who seem more organised. A squad of Democrats showed up at Mr Goodlatte’s town-hall meeting, armed with printouts of awkward questions. A shy 16-year-old girl stood up to explain that she was studying for a college degree while still in high school, but worried that she would not be able to put it to use, since she was an illegal alien. Her tears prompted some sympathetic but non-committal comments from Mr Goodlatte. But he is in no doubt, he later explained, that most of his constituents want to see stronger enforcement of existing immigration laws and oppose a path to citizenship.